Shouldn’t School Administrators be doing everything they can to stop bullying? Isn’t that essential to help teachers do the best job they can? Shouldn’t that include trying programs that propose to cure, not merely prevent, bullying and that ‘sound promising and deemed to have merit’?

Current bullying prevention programs are ineffective Bullying in schools is a contributing factor to the inability of children to learn as well as they otherwise could. Yet all the evidence supports the conclusion that not one of the existing anti-bullying programs is truly effective. Moreover reported results are primarily in the temporary reduction in observable on school site bullying incidents. No results suggest that the bullies are cured, or that the ongoing grief of the victims is materially reduced.

Moreover, these incidents are no longer the primary source of abuse to the victims. That role has been taken over by cyber bullying. Nevertheless, teachers are being held primarily responsible for the fact that the average overall literacy score in the US is far below what it should be. A situation that exists in spite of the fact that the average cost per pupil is at, or near the top, of what the rest of the world spends. That is an issue that is now even placing teachers’ very jobs and careers at risk.

Bullying Cure (2012) by Ronald Bibace is the only book that explains in detail how to cure bullying as opposed to temporarily preventing it.Its principles can be implemented quickly and inexpensively. The beneficial results can be observed in weeks as opposed to the years most programs require.

All good teachers are concerned about their students and creating the best possible teaching environment. Shouldn’t they therefore be asking the school administrators to implement any programs that offer considerable promise to improve the teaching environment, even before full testing that usually takes years? More so, when a program has a virtually zero cost and downside?

The Bibace Fast track Bullying Cure (outlined in Bullying Cure) was presented to one of the largest School Boards in the US in May of 2012, for approval to be taught in the schools. Approval was denied, although the presentation was ‘deemed: interesting and with many of the ideas presented having merit, and included generally sound and logical principles that can be applied to life’.

The program was rejected because of the absence of hard evidence proving it works in an educational setting. But no matter how promising any plan may be that evidence can only be gathered by allowing testing in schools.

The School Board has adopted an unfortunate Catch 22 approach. No school evidence means no school testing allowed. No school testing allowed means no school evidence is obtainable.

The result is victimization, both of the school children who can’t learn as well as they should and of their teachers who don’t get the help they need to teach as well as they otherwise could, and whose very jobs are then placed at risk.